PHILLIPS v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 212 (1967)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court Reports

PHILLIPS v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 212 (1967) PHILLIPS v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 212 (1967) 386 U.S. 212

PHILLIPS ET VIR v. CALIFORNIA.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF
CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 684, Misc.
Decided February 27, 1967.

Certiorari granted; 240 Cal. App. 2d 197, 49 Cal. Rptr. 480, reversed.

Appellants pro se.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and S. Clark Moore, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Chapman v. California, ante, p. 18.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE CLARK are of the opinion that the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, supra.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm the judgment below for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Chapman v. California, supra, at 45.

Page 386 U.S. 212, 213




U.S. Supreme Court Reports

PHILLIPS v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 212 (1967) PHILLIPS v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 212 (1967) 386 U.S. 212

PHILLIPS ET VIR v. CALIFORNIA.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF
CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 684, Misc.
Decided February 27, 1967.

Certiorari granted; 240 Cal. App. 2d 197, 49 Cal. Rptr. 480, reversed.

Appellants pro se.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and S. Clark Moore, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Chapman v. California, ante, p. 18.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE CLARK are of the opinion that the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, supra.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm the judgment below for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Chapman v. California, supra, at 45.

Page 386 U.S. 212, 213

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.